Jesus Didn't Write a Book

The only time Jesus is described as writing, we don't know what he wrote.

Jesus didn't write a book.

Think on it people. He could have easily done so. Why didn't he? If you find yourself wishing he had, or wishing perhaps his apostles had written more -in general or on your pet topic- then your paradigm is wrong. Find a paradigm where it make perfect sense for Jesus not to write down his teaching, and not to write it down in such a way that would supposedly clear up misinterpretations of future Christians. You should find that paradigm because that is what happened. Jesus actually didn't write anything down, and his apostles wrote shockingly little. And we don't even know if he told his followers to write anything down, and often it seems they dont expect it to be scripture anyway. Did the apostle John think 3rd John would be scripture? Did Paul know Philemon would be read by people 2000 years later as scripture? And if Jesus had intended the future Church to be guided solely by a book, we should expect the apostles would have written much, much more! would have written on some very basic topics like.. oh... what do we do when we gather on Sunday morning for instance. Yet they apparently didn't think it was necessary to write that down! That makes no sense at all in scripture only Protestantism. Did it skip their mind? Do you find yourself wishing they had spelled things out better on topic X? If so, you may be assuming that the text was meant to explain topic X. But if Christ left everything this Church needs, yet forgot to leave them a way to sort out topic X, then there is a problem. And in the Sola Scriptura paradigm, that is a problem.

But for Catholics, we know he didn't write a book because he sent men. And he told us that if we have a problem to "take it to the Church". We can affirm that the bible consistent with everything we need to know, and that Christ left us with everything we need, but that includes successors of the apostles authorized to rightly interpret scripture.

So if you find yourself wishing more were written down to explain something, or wishing perhaps Jesus had personally written down stuff, you need to change your paradigm. Go to the Church. Those men Jesus commissioned commissioned other men, who in turn did the same, all the way to the present day, and their identity is not mysterious or controversial.

If the bible were meant to be the sole authority in the Church, shouldn't there be a heck of a lot more info in there? And shouldn't it be a heck of a lot clearer so there perhaps would be just a few dozen Protestant interpretations, rather than thousands?

It really is this simple folks.

Letter to Doug on Sola Scriptura, Mary, Succession

Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.
Song of Soloman 4:7

Doug said:

Holy Mackerel David...
Excuse the pun during Lent.

I'm having a real hard time wondering if you haven't lost something here.... or is that part of dying to oneself? You need to step back, take a big breath of fresh air and read what you posted and compare it to what the Holy Bible has to say.
Consider what your dear friend has posted in comment #1. His last sentence is something you should ponder.
Remember, the seed can make it all the way to the ground and sprout and then get tangled up in weeds and hence bear no fruit.
Consider this scripture, (it is Christ in us that does the work):

Gal 2:20-21 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

David, you need to get back to the basics...maybe quote some scripture to back up your thought process here.

Love ya brother,

Doug

Doug,

Hey, believe me, when I read guys like C.R. Stam, I am saying "Holy Mackerel" the whole time too! Stinky stuff to my nose. By the way, it is stinky stuff to literally 99.999 percent of Christians as well. Of course just saying that does not convince you to abandon your Ultradispensationalism. You believe that your micro-small sect is correct, and all other Christians have gotten some pretty major things wrong. You could be right. We will let inquiring minds examine and decide how likely that is, and if Pauline or ultra Dispensationalism best represents Christian Truth.

 I again want to say that the issue of authority will be at the root of any discussion between us. I submit to the living, breathing, Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and you submit to your interpretation of the Scriptures. So when those two authorities clash, we of course will each point to what we see as our higher authority. So our discussions will invariably always be funneled into that narrow alley. Perhaps we should just stay in that alley? But I suspect you may not desire to spend much time discussing these things because of farm business etc. If not, please ignore all that follows and go have a great day! The weather is great out there! How bout' them Vikings?!
As for me, I would rather have a slow, methodical conversation than the cluster bomb of scripture verses and topic changes like with Jed and Kendra. Also them having opinions on topics they could not even define was out of control. Like saying Vanilla is the best ice cream, and then asking what Chocolate and strawberry ice cream taste like.

Keep in mind that I believe every single verse of the bible. So simply quoting scripture will just make me nod my head in agreement. What counts is your interpretation of it.
Simply put, your comment was condescending. There also was very little real content. There was one scripture verse, with your interpretation of it, but the rest was just saying: "Wow, you are really screwed up and going to hell, bye." So again, if you want to actually talk, I am game. But if it will just be more of this type of throw-away comment, I will pass on further discussion. I take my time and put a lot of effort into these conversations, so I dont want to waste time like the last time. I did days of reading and research, and then a couple sentence throw away response from you. 9 months ago I took time and responded to you, and you never replied. You had called me out to prove a claim, I said I would reply with the proof, and then instead of a retraction from you, I got nothing.

So like I said, if you want to discuss, lets do that. Pick a topic from my post here or whatever you want, and let's focus like a laser beam on it.

If not, or if you don't have the time, that is fine as well, and I won't hold it against you! You are a busy guy!But If that is the case, please just disregard the following.


Anyway, on to your comment:

You said:

“I'm having a real hard time wondering if you haven't lost something here.... or is that part of dying to oneself?”

Doug, I don’t think you are really having a hard time with this! You disagree strongly. I get that. But I also already knew that. So it would be better to say something to convince me of the truth rather than to just say that I am wrong. I mean, I am not offended if you say I am wrong about something… not at all... iron sharpening iron and all that. But just saying we disagree or saying that I have “lost something” doesn’t help the “sharpening”. You need to show me what you believe I have lost. Until then, this is just handwaving.

You said:

“You need to step back, take a big breath of fresh air and read what you posted and compare it to what the Holy Bible has to say.”

Nah. I like to just make stuff up and ignore the Bible. More fun that way. Plus it says stuff that I dont like. So I like to just make crap up. ;-)

Come on Doug. This is just more handwaving.

And of course, as you might suspect, I have done that! And I do not see any contradiction with any of the 72 books of the inerrant and infallible written Word of God and Catholic teaching.

So again, I do not think your admonition here really has any traction. I have “compared it to what the Holy Bible has to say” and I believe it fits like a glove! Your incredulity at my belief does not in itself convince me to change my mind. We can debate specific passages I suppose, and get into the interpretation and exegesis and what-not, but the fundamental question of interpretive authority will always be the elephant in the room for us. At the end of the -what- of iron sharpening, who gets to decide which interpretation is true? Who am I? Who are you? Whose authority do we speak with? And yes, if you want I can show you from scripture where I believe you are wrong if you wish me to with a shower of verses and exegesis of each one. But I think this “authority” issue is really the root level disagreement between us. Doctrines about Mary are a leaf way out on the tip of a branch compared to the root issue.

Can you picture me saying:

“Doug, you need to step back, take a big breath of fresh air and compare your doctrine to what the Holy Bible has to say.”

I hope you said yes! Because I can see myself saying that same thing to you! My point is not that we should not disagree, my point is that just stating our disagreement gets us nowhere!

Doug, I think you need to step back and re-examine your paradigm. Not sure what saying that to you acomplishes.

 Heck, we both disagree with tons of professors with multiple degrees in scripture and theology. Godly men like Wilson, Sproul, Billy Graham, Wesley, Luther, Calvin, etc. Would you advise them to "take a big breath of fresh air and compare their doctrine to what the Holy Bible has to say"? I think they might chuckle a bit at that one. If they all just read their bible again they would become your specific subset of Pauline Dispensationalists?

You said: “Consider what your dear friend has posted in comment #1. His last sentence is something you should ponder.
Remember, the seed can make it all the way to the ground and sprout and then get tangled up in weeds and hence bear no fruit.”

I’m not exactly sure what you mean here, but I think you are referring to the “sufficiency” Bob mentioned and how he thinks Mary makes Christ insufficient for Catholics and they end up worshipping Mary.

Again, Doug, I have “pondered” it. Do you think I have not considered these things at length? Do you think that I believe they contradict the bible and yet don’t care? No way. Everything I believe is consistent with scripture and can be either implicitly (Christ’s full humanity and divinity) or explicitly (the resurrection) found there.

Mary does not get in the way of Christ any more than my wife, or you, or Melissa, or Jed does. I have asked all of you to intercede for me to God before, and I do not believe that puts you in a position of me worshipping you. In fact, being an intercessor is exactly what St. Paul commands in 1Tim. 2:1-8, especially verse 1. Mary is just really good at it.

You apply Jesus’ parable of the Sower to me and warn that I may be the seed that is suffocated by weeds. I genuinely thank you for the concern Doug. I think every one of us needs to take Jesus’ words to heart there. Ironically, as far as I know, as a Pauline Dispensationalist you would apply that parable to the Jews and not to the gentile Church? Can a gentile believer like me who trusts in Christ be choked with weeds and go to hell? As a Catholic, I believe I can, but I thought you did not believe that. So I am confused with your admonition. Perhaps you believe my current belief about Mary means I never did really have a true faith? I can only guess what you are trying to say. Having said that, I will cautiously say that I don’t think the parable currently applies to me, although sometimes I do feel like I am in a jungle with a machete! I daily examine myself to see how I can conform myself to Christ in the sense of Galatians 2:20 (which I still have memorized KJV style by the way!) I trust in Christ for my salvation. He is the only way, His is the only path to get to heaven. And only by His merit will I get there! That is what I believe, and having that hope, I believe I have the hope of heaven. Everything, including intercession of saints, Mary, or you, or Melissa, etc… is SECONDARY to Christ’s FINISHED work of salvation on the cross. So again, thanks for your concern. And please pray for me! And I will pray for you bro! Lord knows we need it!

You said:

“Consider this scripture [Gal. 2:20-21], (it is Christ in us that does the work):”

1 Cor. 3:9 says we are God’s “sunergoi”, or co-workers. I will say it again, Christ did it ALL on Calvary. His finished work is what brings us salvation. YET, He also asks us to join in his work to bring His finished work to the world (including ourselves). He doesn’t need our help, but he does consider us co-workers. It absolutely IS Christ in us that does the work Doug! I agree! The Holy Ghost goes before our works and “tills the soil”. Without the Spirits work, our efforts and prayers are filthy rags. This is what Gal. 2 verse 21 is referring to.
By the way, Catholics believe that in Galatians St. Paul is warning against trusting in the Jewish ceremonial law. And righteousness does not come by that law. So that someone who just obeys with a rotten heart, without agape, can still be on the fast track to hell. Agape is love for God and neighbor by willing the good of the other for the others own sake. So this may be a fundamental interpretive difference between us. Catholics view Galatians and much of Romans as referring to the CEREMONIAL law when it talks about “the works of the law”.

You have no problem asking other people to pray for you. That makes them an intersessor, and a co-worker with Christ. Consider how God desires and responds to our mediation and intersession:

Scripture Catholic is a good source for the Catholic interpretation of many scriptures. The following can be found here.

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects.

Mark 16:20

Romans 8:28 God "works for good with" (the Greek is "sunergei eis agathon")

2 Cor. 6:1 - "working together" (the Greek is "sunergountes") with him.

Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” helps us on our journey.

1 Peter 2:5 - we are a holy priesthood, instructed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.

Rev. 1:6, 5:10 - Jesus made us a kingdom of priests for God. Priests intercede through Christ on behalf of God's people.

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects.



Consider more of these scriptures about our mediation/participation with God.

You said: “David, you need to get back to the basics...maybe quote some scripture to back up your thought process here.”

Which thought process? Is there something specific you had in mind? Many of the scriptures I just quoted back up the fact that creatures can be mediators and intersesors.
Doug, I could say the same... "you need to get back to the basics... etc." But what are the basics, and who gets to determine them? What do you think they are? Are you sure we disagree about the basics? Which "basic" have I left behind? While your at it, please show me your credentials to determine these things!

And I am not sure how quoting scripture will solve our disagreement Doug, although I have done so, and can quote more if you like. Who has the authority to declare the true meaning of the passages we both affirm yet disagree on?

From your perspective, the Bible says X, and Dave needs to listen to X.

From my perspective, the faith of the Apostles (in the Bible, Tradition and magisterium) says Y, and I need to listen to Y.
Who gets to decide who has the trump card Doug? Notice I didnt say who has the trump card, which is a secondary question, and of course we both think we have it. But who gets to decide who has it. What authority do you stand on when you make your claim to the trump card?

It really is the most simple and fundamental question:

"Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”

If you ask me that question, I will refer you to my bishop. He believes the same stuff as the other 5100 bishops around the globe. He believes the same stuff that the guy who laid hands on him did. So on and so on back to the apostles. I believe whatever they believe, because they have the authority from Christ.

Anything I say here I encourage you to compare with the faith of the Church of all ages. Compare with the Word of God in both Scripture and Tradition. Look in the universal Catechism and correct me. I am speaking under authority not as an authority. I fully submit my every word to the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which can physically trace its line of succession to the apostles. This living Magisterium can say to me "yes, that is what we believe." or "No, that is not of the faith". The "authority" you claim in pronouncing the meaning of scripture can not do that. Your authority strangely seems to speak with a voice that sounds a lot like Doug. It doesnt sound like my brother, or my former pastor Josh Moon, or R.C. Sproul, or Billy Graham, or any other people claiming and preaching by the same authority. In fact there are some big diferences in belief. Hmm. Why is it that this "authority" seems to produce different adherents, different faiths? Well, it aint the authority's fault, that's for sure. The scripture says one thing. It is true. So it must be the ones claiming it as their authority that are wrong. And they must then also be wrong that it was ever meant to be their authority in the first place. Because God is not the author of confusion, and would not pretend to give them a reliable authority, but then pull the rug out from their feet. So again I say:

"Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”


From my perspective, my Church put together the table of contents of your Bible. Unless, that is, you want to show me your inspired table of contents (you would be the first Protestant to claim that). Show me where the Bible even makes the slightest, weakest, in-passing attempt to say what the bible even is! Catholics know what it is because the successors of the apostles wrote the inspired table of contents. How do you know what it is without referring to that Tradition? Obviously that Tradition is not laid down in scripture, so how can that possibly fit with Sola Scriptura? And I agree with you that the Bible is great for doctrine, reproof and correction, but show me where your Bible says that only the Bible can be used for those purposes.

Because my bible says the opposite!

2 Thess. 2:15:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

Over and over the scripture itself points to the apostles and their successors as the ones we should listen to in preference to our own interpretations, and shows that the laying on of hands by a legitimate bishop in succession is necessary:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-I

Go ahead and read the bible, it is very profitable. But when you disagree with the bishops in succession, the scripture tells you to obey the bishops. When the Jerusalem council ruled on the circumcision controversy, they didn’t then send out a memo of their “interpretation” as a suggestion to all the Churches! They had the legitimate authority, and they demanded obedience, as was their right. The ones who disagreed (possibly many, many, Jews) were required to obey… even if they disagreed!

My Bishop, who can trace his ordination by laying on of hands to the apostles themselves, is Archbishop John Nienstedt, who’s apostolic throne (cathedra) is in the Cathedral of Saint Paul in St. Paul MN. Who is your Bishop? And per 2Timothy 2:2, can I see his credentials please?

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me."

2 Tim. 2:2 – You will find FIVE levels of apostolic succession in this verse! This is how St. Paul commands that authority be passed down- NOT through each person interpreting scripture on their own.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

Many, many more examples from scripture showing how authority is passed down (Apostilic succession through the laying on of hands) in the Church. There are so many, I really should just put the link instead of writing them all down:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-II

That is what the bible says about our authority. But for proving sola scriptura, you will find nothing. The only verses you can provide will simply say how great scripture is. That it is inerrant, infallible, and useful for use in and by the Church. You will show Bereans using the Old Testament to verify Paul’s account of Jesus. Great. But Catholics already believe all that. What you must show is that scripture is the ONLY thing Christians can use for our authority.

It bears repeating. For sola scriptura to be true, What you must show is that scripture is the ONLY thing Christians can use for our authority.

And that “only” is exactly what the scripture never says or implies. In fact it says the exact opposite in 2Thess. 2:15 and elsewhere.

First I challenge you to respond to the evidence I provided on the mediaval Bible availability.

Then I challenge you to show me, using only scripture, the "Sola" (only) in sola scriptura in your Bible. And I challenge you to show me the divinely inspired table of contents in your Bible.

Show me even one of them and I will renounce Catholicism on the spot.

Peace to you and the whole family!

David

"Why I Hate Jesus, by Hating Religion"

Lame lame lame.

There are lots of dumb statements in that new video about loving Jesus and hating religion, but the one that really put the cheese grater to my ear was this:

"Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook."

Er uh, you aint judgin? Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining dude! If there is one thing you are doing it is judging. Not that that is necessarily bad. If your attack on "religion" is valid, then preach on. But it isn't.

Why? Because you are one of the most religious people I have ever seen!

I would love to follow you to whatever you do on a weekly basis for involvement with "Jesus". I don't want to presume it is "going to church" on Sunday morning or anything so religious as that, I mean that would make you a hypocrite for doing something external, right? Riiiight. Perhaps it is a weekday bible study or prayer group with some of your Jesus loving, non-religious friends. If that is the case, what should we best call this experience of yours? ...That's right... R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N. What songs do you sing during "worship" at your gathering? Hmm, what to call that... oh yeah there's that "religion" word again. When the guy with the ripped t-shirt playing the guitar plays the slow song "one more time", what do we call that? It is liturgy, AKA religion. (Yes it is bad liturgy, but liturgy nonetheless)
Do you have the Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist once in a while where you (non-religiously of course) eat bread and drink wine grape juice with your non-religious fellows in remembrance of Jesus? How should we best describe this action? Once again, it is a RELIGIOUS action. Even what you believe is happening when you eat and drink is all about your religion dude. You do not get to follow Jesus and avoid religion. It is just sad that you have probably made your religion up yourself.

Sorry, but the fact that you are quite religious is...

...unavoidable. It is your destiny.


What about baptism? Are you paedo-baptist, credo-baptist, or no-baptist? What occurs during baptism? Is it a sacrament which gives grace and forgives sin or merely a outward sign of those things already having happened? Whatever you answer will be a description of your religion.

Even your video is a religious video. You are telling the world about your religion. Could it be you don't like religion because you see it is other people telling you what to do and believe? Could it be that you would much rather tell them what to do and believe in lame videos?
Also how do you know who Jesus even is? Oh wait, from a religious book collected by Catholic bishops in the 4th century, that's right.

And did Jesus hate religion?
You said in the video:

"What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion"


My answer: If you told me that I would call you a liar. This is hilarious because it is almost word for word the EXACT OPPOSITE of something Jesus said!-

 
Matt. 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
 
If there is one thing the law and prophets were it was religion. And Christ specifically said he did not come to abolish it. For a Protestant, this guy isn't too well read in scripture.  

And that's not all! Jesus had plenty more to say about religion: 
 
Matt. 28:18-20 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Just in this verse we have Jesus saying "go", "teach", baptize", He tells them how to do it, tells them what to teach: "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That is religion if I have ever seen it.

John 14:15 If you love me you will keep my commandments.

Again, that is religion. The guy in his poem says:

"religion says do, Jesus says done."

Jesus says "do" all the time! The problem he finds with the pharisees and scribes is that they do not "do"! They are all talk and no "do". It is not the doing that is the problem, but the not doing. It may sound corny, but it is true: Love is a verb. The "doing" of religion is exactly what Jesus wants us to do. He wants us to love Him and each other. When we do that, if we do that, it is going to look outwardly like we are holy people. But guess what? There are holy people! There are people that obey Christ by "doing" what he commanded most of the time and confessing their sins the rest of the time. Are these "religious" people part of the problem because they obey Christ? No way. Hypocrisy is bad. But there can be just as much hypocrisy in someone claiming not to be "religious" as someone who claims to be. Obeying Christ is the difference, not religion. Both hypocrites and non-hypocrites are religious. THAT is why they can be judged in terms of hypocrisy! Because they are measured by their professed religion.

Lastly, I find it sick how many hits this video has on Youtube. If the video was titled "Why I hate Hypocrisy, but love Jesus" do you think it would have more than a few hundred hits? No way. It just goes to show how anti-"religion" and antinomian American Evangelicalism is. The Reformed can complain all they want that there evangelicals just aren't getting it when it comes to understanding sola fide and sola scriptura, but guys like this seem to me to be taking BOTH to their logical conclusions: pitting works against faith and pitting organised religion (Apostolic Tradition) against the scripture.

For more Catholic responses (video and otherwise) look here.

For a great Reformed response look here.

UPDATE: I just watched the following video. Wow! I could have just avoided this post and shown this video. It says everything I wanted to say but much better. I Love it when the priest compares the incident with Judas whining about the purfume being poured on Jesus with the complaints about big churches.

Solo Scriptura

"All appeals to scripture are appeals to interpretations of scripture." -Keith Mathison

Protestants are rebels who became what they hated. They rejected papal authority and became popes of their own little outposts. They traded a Magisterium with at least a plausible claim to infallibility for their own sure fallibility of opinion.What they are left with is the "truth", as Obi-Wan would say "from a certain point of view".

WWLD (What Would Luther Do?) if he were alive today?

The following is a comment I left on a blog of a local church here in the Twin Cities that I found on a list of churches thinking about joining the new Anglican ordinariate thing in the USA. HE asks an intruiging question:

"If Martin Luther was born today would he try to reform the Catholic or Lutheran faith?"


Here was my response which didnt immediately post on the site:

Luther would put on sackcloth and ashes, and crawl on his knees to St. Peter's in Rome to repent and submit to the magisterium of the Catholic Church if here were here today.

Both Luther and Calvin had a vision of a changed Church, but still their vision was of a SINGLE changed Church. They would be absolutlely horrified to see what has become of their reform. In no way would they stomach for a moment the thousands of sects that claim the authority of Scripture Alone. In the past few hundred years, Protestantism has largely ceased to even pretend that the Church needs to be one entity with one authoritative hierarchy. Luther would have had a fit at that idea! Seeing the reforms of the counter-reformation, the never ending division and discord of Protestantism, and the continuing unity and faithfulness of the Catholic Church, I truly believe Luther would not even hesitate to swim the Tiber. (Actually being a Catholic, he would just need to recant and go to confession to have his excommunication lifted). I also think he would be won over to Catholicism primarilly by the obvious and spectacular failure of his "pillar" Sola Scriptura. The division and heresy he may have seen in germ form (think anabaptists) which resulted from sola scriptura are now so blindingly clear after 500 years of ever increasing fragmentation that as for the first pillar, Luther would likely choose to read Sola Fide in a Catholic friendly way as Benedict XVI has suggested, but as for the other pillar, he would find no way of ignoring the evidence of history that Sola Scriptura has been anything but a spectacular implosion of failure.

I say all of this as someone who was a flaming Reformed Protestant 2 years ago. I have read Luther, and my heritage is LCMS. A year ago I discovered a site that took unity seriously and found my faith in Sola Scriptura had crumbled under the weight of the evidence and so I did the unthinkable.... I swam the Tiber. I felt Luther smiling down on me, and I feel he would have been crying right there with me as I submitted my heart and mind to Christ and His Church.

God bless any Christians who take the time to think about Christian unity in a serious way. I truly believe that the one option, Rome, will be the light at the end of that tunnel of questioning.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

 

There is mortal sin, and it leads to Hell

My friend wrote to me:

"Another example is of the prodigal son. Talk about a sinner! And yet, God (the father) did not require any pleading... the robe, the ring, the calf - that was just for coming home!"



Uh yeah, he CAME HOME. So he DID have to do something. If coming home with your tail between your legs like the prodigal did is not desperate pleading, I dont know what is. Yes, of course God met him from even a distance, before he even got there, but the attitude of the son was pleading humility.

"However, assurance doesn't end at "mortal" sin. Assurance ends at rejection of Christ. "


Mortal sin IS rejection of Christ! Mortal sin destroys the life of God in us.

"Christ isn't going to divorce you - just don't divorce him!"

Are you trying to lure me to hell? Christ says over and over that He will divorce us if we hate him. So yes, He WILL divorce us under certain circumstances. I still have confidence in His promises, but if I reject him, He will reject me. Dear Lord have you ever read the NT?

And, if he is guaranteed to not divorce me, and my future sins are all forgiven, why bother asking for forgiveness anymore then? Why pray the part in the Lords prayer "forgive us our sins as we..." ? Is that all just a game we play with God... we pretend to be asking for forgiveness, but really we know it is already forgiven? So even if we don't ask, all will be forgiven?

-Or-

Are those sins actually forgiven when we pray the prayer, or when we go to the Church to have them forgiven as Jesus specifically intends? John 20:22-23:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Which is it? It cant be both. Either we are already forgiven of all past present and future sins, or we are not. Which is it?

"I see how this works into the theology of the "last rights". The problem is I don't see this reflected in the Bible. There is no example of any holy person who is held in God's hand their entire life, only to sin at their death bed and be condemned to hell."

NO ONE is ever mentioned as being sent to hell in scripture dude. So no, I guess there is no biblical example. But if you can not think of dozens of stern warnings from Jesus and Paul TO BELIEVERS that they take care lest they fall away, then let me know and I will show you.

My favorite example is 1 Cor. 10.

Read the whole passage, it gives me chills.

Here is an excerpt (my emphasis):

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Why would Paul give this warning if it were not possible to fall? And like I said, the biblical evidence is STAGGERING that we can, in fact, contrary to your claim, fall away from Christ and be thrown root and branch into hell.

And if it is possible to fall because of sin, which is clear from scripture, then of course, as St. John says there is mortal sin. It is right there in 1 John dude!

From 1 John chapter 5 (my emphasis):

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

John is clearly saying that a brother can commit a sin that leads to death (that is what MORTAL means), and that there are two types of sins. Why is this not biblical? Methinks you are the one who is ignoring the bible. Not to mention the fact that the writers of the bible clearly point you to their oral teaching as well, and the Church, never once do they point you to Scripture as the only authority.
Not to mention the fact that Christ EXPLICITLY, EXPLICITLY, EXPLICITLY, gives the Church the power to forgive or retain sins. Something you will never see in a Protestant environment. For people who claim to listen to the Scripture, that's not very biblical if you ask me.

"Sneaky" Catholic Ten Commandments

Bob said:

I took your advice, and started reading the RCC Catechism. I'm pretty sure I found a place where the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error. It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it.



In particular, the issue is the teaching of the 10 commandments. I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17.


The RCC, however, in teaching their catechism does something quite sneaky. The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment, making it a footnote of the first and stripping it of any meaning. Instead of "You shall not make for yourself an image", the teaching is "images of saints are OK".


All the other commandments then get bumped up a number... which leaves you with 9. Not exactly convincing, since at the very least people know that God gave Moses 10. To make up for this discrepancy, they split the true 10th commandment into 2 commandments - effectively "don't covet" and "don't covet v. 2".


You can see this teaching quite clearly from the Vatican website - just scroll through the table of contents, it should jump out at you. The 10 commandments are in part 3 section 2.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM


The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols. At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them. I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.






Bob, you made it really far into the CCC! Or you are skipping around. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin. Either way, congrats for going to the source for your research. That makes choices easier.


Unfortunately you say:
"It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it."


Well, if it passed muster as being evidence, then I would consider it, but it just does not. Neither would Luther BTW, but I will get to that.
Here is what the INTRO to the section on the first commandment says:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7B.HTM

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT


I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."


The prohibition against making graven images is right there in the catechism Bob!


My daughter learned the 10 commandments last year in her religion class at Holy Family and she learned the part about graven images. We just number them differently, as do many PROTESTANTS who have zero love for Rome.

Get this Bob, my LUTHERAN mother learned the “graven images” as part of the FIRST commandment too! That is right, perhaps you don’t know this (perhaps because you grew up Reformed) but Lutherans use the same numbering as Catholics! So did many church fathers, among which Augustine stands out. And Orthodox (who venerate images like there is no tomorrow) use the Reformed numbering, go figure. (or I guess the Reformed use the Orthodox numbering… chicken/egg thing)

So are Lutherans “sneaky” too?

“I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17”

Uh, yeah, so do all Christians. No crap. But if you’ll notice, they are not numbered dude. They are also in Deuteronomy 5, but there again, no numbering.

“The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment…”


Huh? The second commandment for Catholics is to not take the Lord’s name in vain. Potentially a mortal sin because it is a serious matter. We don’t diminish it! You are using your numbering to correct their (and Luther’s and Augustines) numbering. Who cares about numbering. The point is what the commandments SAY. And Catholics still accept fully the command against graven images. As do you. We just understand it differently.


The point is though, the prohibition against graven images IS RIGHT THERE IN THE CATHOLIC FIRST COMMANDMENT! Nothing is ignored or deleted! For goodness sake Bob, even the Rabbis from the Jewish Talmidic tradition have traditionally held all the separate parts of the first commandment (Catholic one) to form one solid unit.

There are THREE parts of the same prohibition of idolatry, which I know you agree are all related: 1. Have no other gods before God, 2. Don’t make idols, 3. Don’t bow down to idols.

Catholics (and Lutherans) have ALL THREE in their first commandment. You have parts 2 and 3 as your second commandment. Both ways have them though.

Which begs the question, why isnt your third commandment Exodus 20:5/Deut 5:9 “You shall not bow down to them or serve them…”?

These Deuteronomy and Exodus verses are specifically about not bowing down, and are some of the more lengthy verses. Certainly longer than the “You shall not kill” ones. So WHY is that not one of your 10? Could it be because it is so similar to the other 2 parts of the commandment (no other gods, no graven images) that it is redundant to make it its own commandment?


Within the CCC section titled “the first commandment”, is a whole section about graven images. No sneakyness. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM


What you don’t like is your interpretation contradicting the other ¾ of Christendom of the past 2000 years.

The Orthodox have your numbering, yet venerate images!

The Holy Spirit, through the Church at the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) has spoken, and you want to do your own thing.

“The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols.”


Yeah, it is a big conspiracy. With the Orthodox as well. 2000 years of godly men are all deceived, but Bob is not. Yeah.


“At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them.”


It was tackled in 787AD! Been there done that! And the Orthodox have YOUR numbering but yet still venerate images! So there is no numbers game.

“ I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.”


The Word of God IS the Tradition AND the Scripture! You are making a false division of two inseperable things. And what you are calling the “Word of God” is really just your interpretation. Unless you want to show me where the numbering system is in the scripture. Even Luther would be looking at you with the squinty eyes right now man.

Veneration is not idolatry. Saying it is "obviously" idolatry is not convincing. Because MOST Christians of all ages have had zero problem with veneration of saints through images. Even ones who were angered by pagan images of false gods have venerated images of Christ and the saints! They saw a clear distinction between the two practices.
 
Peace

Reformed "Authority"

This is a comment I left at the Reformed site Green Baggins:

I am glad they exonerated Lawrence, and my former pastor Josh Moon. The confession you all subscribe to says all disputes are to be resolved by scripture. That is what everyone here is doing, and you all are doing the best you can. When I read Rev. Dr. Moon, or TE Lawrence, or most of what has been written here in these comments, I think to myself “sounds fair enough”. You all have very good points, and take the scripture at its word as best you are able.


The obvious problem is you all disagree as to WHAT the scripture is saying.


That is problem one.

Problem two comes in when your own authorities decide a matter, and those who are supposedly in submission to that authority decide they will just ignore it in favor of their own! (Comment #36,)


And all those who disagree with their exegesis are “Christ’s enemies” (#100)!


Hmm, well, having been someone you would probably accuse of being an “FV” guy myself fro having believed in baptismal regen and paedocom, (although I would have just called myself a bible believing Reformed Christian) and having known Josh Moon and many men like him which you accuse of being FV, all I can say is have fun in your tiny denomination. If you are willing to turn on men like Moon and lawrence and refuse to even call them brothers, and call them “enemies of Christ”, and yet these men agree with you on so very much, much more than most evangelicals certainly, then you will just have to leave the PCA and start your own new micro-denomination I guess (gee that is a new concept). When will it end?


What do the worker bees in the pew do? I was one of those guys. No theological training beyond bedtime theology reading and R.C. Sproul videos. But I desperately loved Reformed theology. But when someone like me starts to agree with Wilson AND Sproul, Horton AND Leithart, both “sides” sounded biblical to me. Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? what do I do then?


You cannot answer that question. All you will say is “read the scriptures” or on a bad day you will say “listen to me read the scriptures”. But in the end, when I cannot choose who is right or wrong, and both sides sound scriptural, what do I do? Who do I listen to? Who is right and who is wrong? Where is the authority which is supposed to be so solid in the Reformed polity when the GA passes down a verdict and people choose to ignore it anyway? Doesn’t that prove who is really in charge? Doesn’t that prove that that person will only agree with the GA decision if it agrees with their opinion?

Instead of “semper reformanda” or “sola Scriptura”, I have a new suggestion for the 21st century Reformed motto:


“When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/


Though I am now a Catholic, I still long for unity with you brothers. Ironically, some here would not consider me a brother as a Catholic OR an FVer. I can’t win.

Peace,

David Meyer

Saints, sola, and keys

"Death is consistently described in the bible as "being asleep". Someone who is asleep doesn't communicate in either direction very well."


Saints are not dead, so your example is a straw man. If they were dead, then they could not hear us, but they are Not dead, they are in the beatific vision. They experience God immediately (no mediation) and experience what both Catholics and Orthodox call theosis. It goes without saying that in that state: they can hear us!

And the faith of the church from the beginning has been one that prays to saints and uses images (my catacomb example etc.). You place your opinion above the first Christians who knew the apostles personally, and 2000 years of a Church who has prayed to saints, and prayed for the departed.

You are placing yourself above a council of the Church. For you to accept Nicaea I but reject Nicaea II is arbitrary. And it shows that your acceptance of Nicaea I is based on your previous agreement with it. If you someday decide Nicaea I is not sufficiently biblical (like Arius did and many others did and do) then you will cease to agree with it as well. So you are not submitting to the Church in your acceptance of Nicaea I, but are accepting it because it happens to conform to what you like.

"At the very least, the justification (from the bible) for veneration of icons from these passages would only extend to cherubim..."

I will not even get into your exegesis, which can be debated back and forth, and many smarter people than us have done so. And IF Wikipedia is your first exposure to the councils reasons for their decision, you need to go back to the drawing board and study the issue more. You seem to me to be judging their decision making process using a post-16th century criteria (sola scriptura). That might make it easy for YOU to judge them as off base (if you disagree with their exegesis), but you are missing the way they saw what they were doing and how they were doing it. Their giving biblical citations is not a cue for you to accept or reject their judgement! It is to help you understand how they reached their decision, not to try to convince you!

The point I want to make is that you have an UNBIBLICAL assumption that something needs to be "justified from the bible" to be accepted. Where does the bible say that? Nowhere. In fact it says the opposite, in many places. I've given the texts before, and I am sure you know them. So you need to ask yourself why you believe such a self-contradictory rule. The Christian faith is not only about what is explicit in the bible, and even the bible affirms that fact. A brief example: Polygamy was done away with very early in Christian history. Try to find a prohibition in the bible though, ... you cant. It is wrong because the Church says it is wrong. Period. Even Martin Luther had to cave on the issue and allow polygamy. He could not prohibit it with sola scriptura only.

Also like I said before, the infallibility of the magisterium does not extend to exegesis, but only to the final teaching (unless they specifically define the exegesis as infallible) For instance: Masturbation is a grave sin (mortal) according to the magisterium. They use the passage with Onan spilling his seed (Gen. 38:8-10) for a biblical reference to that act being a sin. But we cannot and must not assume that if that passage is somehow shown to not be talking against masturbation, that therefore the Church's decision to condemn it is not valid. For one thing, there are many OTHER REASONS that they can and do give for it being a gravely disordered act. Their determination is bigger than "the bible says X, therefore Y".

I maintain that you hold to a rule (sola scriptura) that is totally unbiblical. Of course that is insanely ironic, because the rule itself claims all rules should be in the bible. You also hold to a cannon which is not in the bible. You can brush these concerns aside around Rich Gall or other Reformed types that just want to plug their ears, but I will not sit by and let you parade around like the emperor with no clothes.
I will point.
I will laugh.
(I am saying I will call your bluff, not assume your obviously false paradigm)

I think you deserve that honesty.

You can personally disagree all you want at the Catholic beliefs, but at least our basic claim of revelation is not contradictory. We might be wrong, but our paradigm is self consistent.

We claim only the successors of the apostles can decide shit. And lo and behold, they do decide shit. No contradiction.

You claim that ONLY your 66 book bible can decide shit. But your 66 book bible itself explicitly says that it is NOT THE ONLY thing that decides shit! AND your book points to the successors of the apostles to do so! Not to mention not even having a table of contents. Oops. Talk about no clothes, the bible cant even tell you what the bible is. Next time you sit in judgement of all the bishops of Christendom assembled in solemn council at the 7th Ecumenical of Nicaea II, check your paradigm before you scorn theirs. Check to see who is holding the keys Jesus handed out. You will find your hands empty, cold and clammy. Their hands however are holding the keys and the swords. I don't say this to mock or score points, but because I seriously think you have misread your position.

You have read the constitution and are casually knocking at the door of the White House, wanting to come in to let them know what they are doing wrong. You have misread your position.


If you stay in that mindset of believing sola Scriptura is workable, or even plausible, you will be stuck as your own personal denomination. The traditions of men are a dangerous place to try to find truth. And nothing is more of an ANTI-biblical tradition of men than sola scriptura.

Dave

Romish antichrist zombies want your brains!

"If you will not be turned... then YOU WILL DIE!"

Bob,

If the pope can become the anti-christ, then the gates of hell can prevail against the Church... something Christ Himself promised SPECIFICALLY to Peter would not happen RIGHT AFTER He gave him the keys.


If you think that has happened or even that it can happen, then do not become Catholic. I am not sure what Protestant option is any better, but whatever.

As I have said a dozen times, a hundred naughty popes do not add up to the gates of hell prevailing against the Church unless they TEACH heresy. That is the ONLY way they are protected. They are not protected from being assholes! As far as bishops other than the pope, they are basically only protected from error corporately in ecumenical council. The goofball from Africa was not in council last time I checked, and the pope is not teaching doctrine by not immediately hammering him. Perhaps he was hammered, I don't even know. It happened 11 years ago, which is about 2 minutes worth of Rome time. The nickname is "Romanitas", because the Vatican moves so incredibly slow. Many heresies take a hundred years or more to resolve. The Reformation was already generations old by the time Rome finally got around to finishing the Council of Trent in 1563! And to some that was moving pretty fast! The Reformation was going full bore for 30 years before the council even started! And it took 18 years to conclude!

Was that stupid of the Catholic hierarchy to delay so long? YES!

Does it prove they are not the Church Christ founded? NO.

Your Hitler analogy works mainly in the fact that there have been some naughty popes. (some of the things you have brought up however are But Hitler was not divinely protected from teaching error, so obviously that is a big difference.
Show me where the magisterium has TAUGHT error.

"This is why I call it blinders. You Can't Leave. The anti-christ himself can sit on the chair of Peter, speak ex-cathedral,..."

No, a potential antichrist pope would not be able to speak falsehood ex cathedra. He could murder people, but he could not teach error with the full power of his office. At least not according to Catholic doctrine. Again, you are simply mistaken on a basic point.

Your "cant leave" thing is a huge fail. What it seems you want is the ability to overrule a judgement of the Church in favor of your own judgement. Once again, Catholicism is not for you then. I recommend being a Quaker or E. Free if that is how you want to roll. You get to decide every single thing for yourself.

If you think the Church can fail, what is the alternative? Making the Church in your own image somehow magically means it wont fail? Huh? Why will that prevent it from failing? Rejecting 2000 years of tradition for your own opinion is better than submitting to the magisterium established and maintained by Christ himself? If you believe that then stay E. Free or whatever. Just have church in your living room pastor Bob, then your family will BE SURE to be getting the straight dope on all these important topics ...right?

"...set up idols in its halls with people bowing down and wearing them away with their kisses - and you HAVE to stay in the church. "

That would be teaching error. If a pope were to teach people with the full authority of his office that they should bow down and worship an idol, that would be teaching error, which is not possible according to Catholic doctrine. Of course according to Protestant doctrine, any Protestant leader could potentially teach error at any time. At least Catholicism claims an ability to carry out what Jesus promised about hell not prevailing, Protestants will warn up front they might be all messed up in their doctrine.

I am starting to realize that you don't really have a problem with authority like I though you did, it is just any authority above your own that you don't like. Complete submission is demanded at that level however.

Unlike the bootstrapped Protestant churches, the Catholic Church does demand your complete obedience, just as Jesus demands your complete obedience, but somehow because you can think of Jesus as being in the "spiritual" realm, you can see yourself as being obedient to him when really it is YOU you are obeying. YOUR interpretations. Your likes and dislikes. If something rubs you wrong, your out of there. Your "Church" is hard to find because it is in the mirror. Let me say that again for emphasis:

You are having some difficulty finding a Church home because what you want is YOU.

Like a lone man on an island looking for human life, you are searching for something that subsists only within yourself, and therefore your search will be eternal. Because you will only be truly happy with a church that fits your whims EXACTLY. The Catholic Church will let itself be molded by you a bit, even letting you be an anarchist if you wanted probably, but it will not budge for you where you need it to. And it never will. When I realized that, I was drawn to it like a moth to a flame. My personal whims are exactly where I will not find the truth, I knew that more than anything else.

Unless you drop this way of thinking you should seriously just start a home church. (I honestly recommend this) I recently had an email exchange with a woman whose husband has been doing just that for the past few years. They were moving from church to church for years and he finally decided that they were all wrong and he started doing home church. Get this, she said to me that he was "tired of denominationalism". !!! Notice anything wrong there? He is now his own denomination! He has become the enemy he hated!

I think that if he is open to the Holy Spirit, he might eventually see this irony better in a home church than in a bigger denomination. And realize that submission to a plausible authority claiming to be THE Church is really the only logical answer. I hope the same for you. Take some time to be your own pastor, and see if you feel like you are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.
Do you really believe that when you find the Truth it will match up with what you though it would be? Personally I have "found" enough "truth" in my many searches to know FOR SURE the Truth cannot be what I think it is. Truth is something we submit to. You can do it with blinders if it scares you, or you can do it with both eyes wide open, but either way, it will rub you the wrong way.

Peace,

David

Response to David Hagopian's Romeward Bound

Tiber river and the Vatican (the water is warm, dive on in!)

Dear anonymous potential convert,


You asked what I though of it, so this is my response to the article by David Hagopian on reasons people convert to Catholicism titled Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism.

He rushes through lots of topics, some of which are obvious straw men. So I will skip some things. Overall he tries to be fair, but in the end misses the point of these conversions. The worst was his critique of the Catholic convert’s accusation of Protestant interpretive subjectivism. It is just a simple fact that there are many, many opinions of what scripture is saying among Protestants. It is just a fact! And yes, of course that does not consequently mean that they must all be wrong, Catholics are not implying that. But what is obvious to anyone who has ever been in the situation of interpreting scripture in order to find the truth or lead his family is this:

Godly, Holy Spirit filled men interpret the scripture differently.

That blows perspicuity out of the water! The only way to claim there is perspicuity AND Godly men disagreeing is to claim that *obviously* you are right and they are wrong. Or that the other guy has a devil. But that rightly strikes us as arbitrary and arrogant. If someone is content that their interpretation is correct, and is not bothered that men which are his betters in the faith in terms of learning, holiness, and wisdom have a different interpretation, then that is subjectivism, because his opponents feel the same way. He can complain all day that it is not “insipient subjectivism”, but it is. Hagopian says:

“[God] has given His people the means of understanding [the bible] such that the true believer has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him.”

Ohhh. A *true* believer eh? That reminds me of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, and I believe Hagopian is using that fallacy here. Well I guess we will just ask David Hagopian who a *true* believer is next time we need to do some biblical interpreting. The obvious problem with his statement is it does not reflect reality. Protestants that are *true* believers find themselves disagreeing on interpretation with each other all the time! We have all had the experience of having a trusted teacher who is a *true* Christian as far as we can tell, yet we find another of our preferred teachers who disagrees with him on an important theological issue. Which one of them is not a *true* believer? If they both are, then Hagopian is wrong, they do need someone else to guide them in their interpretation. If only one is a true believer, how the hell will I ever be able to tell that unless they fail in some obvious way, like adultery or something? If they both appear to be faithful, solid, true believers, yet disagree on important issues of interpretation, what should the sola scriptura Protestant do? Hagopian does not answer the question, and my guess is he would want to know what issue was being interpreted and then he would think it was obvious I should agree with his (or his favorite teachers) interpretation. But that is just more of the same. I have often had the situation of bringing up the different interpretations among Protestants of, say… the Eucharist. I bring up the fact to show that there are *true* believers who disagree on interpretation. Often the Protestant who hears this will start trying to convince you of his view of the Eucharist! He will say “the other views are wrong, my view is the right one”. That completely misses the point. The point is that godly and smart men will disagree, and the bible cannot be pointed to as a unbiased judge by both of them to resolve the disagreement. Each becomes their own authority.

That subjective situation just might be how Christianity works. It might really be all up to our individual subjective judgment, with all those who disagree being seen by us as not true Christians, or that they are deceived. I grant that Christianity might be that kind of religion. But if it is, it is a joke and I certainly don’t want a part of it.

But I don’t think it is that kind of subjective religion. I think it makes sense that Christ would leave us a Church to guide us, but it is more than just it “making sense”, it is part of the Tradition (in Scripture and the Church fathers) that Christ gave us such a Church! Even in scripture we have tons of evidence that He DID leave us that kind of Church. He himself says “take it to the Church” when there is a problem. But didn’t Hagopian just say that a *true* believer “has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him”? If that is true, why would Jesus tell us to resolve a problem by “taking it to the Church?” And what Protestant Church could honestly resolve a problem? What if I want to know about infant baptism, if it is scriptural or not. Well depending on which Protestant Church I ask to “resolve” the problem, I will get the answer I want. That is not a resolution! It is subjectivity! If I submit to the Baptist church’s decision, it is because I agree with them. If I don’t, I will go to the Presbyterian church and agree with their decision. Can they BOTH be the Church which Christ was telling me to ask to resolve my issue? Protestants say yes. With a straight face!

But, if I only submit when I agree, the one to whom I submit is… me.

“Reichert erroneously assumes that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism…”

I doubt that is what Reichart believes. This is a really dry, overstuffed strawman. Of course there can be a plurality of opinion while having a single truth. The subjectivism comes in in the determination of what the truth is, not merely in the plurality of opinion. Protestants have no set way of determining the truth and therefore have many separated sects. Catholics do have such a way in the magisterium, and therefore are united in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Example: Did the Blessed Virgin Mary die before she was assumed into heaven? There is a variety of opinion among Catholics. The Church has no definitive belief about that issue. Yet there is only one right answer. So there is no “subjectivism” here for Catholics, because the Church has decided. It has decided to not decide. And that is an important decision.

The Catholic Church claims the authority of Christ to determine doctrine, and does so. Therefore the Catholic position is internally consistent, because it actually accomplishes what it claims it can accomplish.

Protestants on the other hand, disagree about all sorts of doctrines they consider to be crucial. Yet where is their authority to mediate the dispute? They say it is in a book they claim will lead them all to the same truth as long as they are a *true* believer. That does not work. Empirically, we can see that there are people who appear to be genuine believers, yet they disagree. Therefore, the Protestant system does not do in reality what they claim it will: resolve disputes and remove doubt about the truth. Right or wrong, the Catholic system does do what we claim it will.

“Just because there are many Protestant denominations and sects does not prove that all of those denominations and sects are false.”

This sounds childish to me. Like my 5 year old saying “just because there is jam all over my face doesn’t mean I was eating jam!” So yes, all the Protestant sects might not be false. But only one can be right at a time! So I guess one of them could have the *true* view of sola scriptura, and be the *true* and real heir of the reformation. And it is obvious to their tiny sect that they are the true believers. Just like it is obvious to all the other sects that they are not. Yes that could be the case that they are the one and only true sect. And my daughter could have not eaten the jam.

“while plurality is not necessarily an indicator of falsity, uniformity is not necessarily an indicator of truth.”

I agree. BUT, the true Church will be uniform! Uniformity alone might not prove it is the Church (there are other things necessary) but unity is a necessary mark of the Church. Obviously Mormons are unified to some degree, and claim to be the only Church, so unity alone does not prove they are so. But any sect or schism that has a non-unified view of the Church cannot be the Church. And very few Protestant sects believe they are the One True Church.

“Truth, you see, is not to be sacrificed on the altar of misguided ecumenicism.”

Thanks for the lecture you pompous blowhard. WHO sacrifices truth on the altar of ecumenism? Is it the Catholics or Hagopian? Lets see, which one sees dispensationalists as part of the Church? Answer: Hagopian. The Catholics do not. The Catholics will not sacrifice the truth for a false unity of ecumenism. The Reformed and most Protestants will. 1.2 Billion Catholics have ONE catechism. If you want to know what they believe, you can buy a paperback for $7 and find out. If you want to know what the “Protestant church” believes, you will simply never know. You will never get two answers that are the same. If ever there were a “misguided eccuminism”, it is the Protestant concept of the invisible Church! If you can understand Protestantism's "invisible Church", you might also be good at nailing Jello to a tree.

“they embrace transubstantiation and believe that at the sound of the bell, the substance of bread and wine turn into the physical body and blood of our Lord.”

This is just totally incorrect. The words of the priest offering the elements in persona Christi are what makes this change, the bell is just for the convenience of everyone at the mass to know when it happens so they can pay closer attention. Christ causes the change, not a bell. Hagopian says “they believe…” then lies about what Catholics believe on a very basic and important point.

“In passing we must also note that lavish churches, while architecturally and aesthetically pleasing to some, come with a hefty price tag. […] But advancing the kingdom of God and meeting the needs of others often compete for the same limited resources.”

That is the wimpy lecture Judas gave to Jesus when the perfume was used on him by the woman. There are no “limited resources” in the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ will provide it’s needs. Judging people for making something beautiful and implying they should have spent it some other way is the same sin Judas was reprimanded by Jesus for. Shame on Hagopian. Go back to your boring, stripped down, bare, regulative principle church and stare at your blank wall. Meanwhile, we Catholics will send money to Mother Teresa’s nuns from our beautiful cathedrals.
“You see, Neocatholics have to name drop because name dropping is built into their ultimate authority (Tradition).”

Yep. I am 100% a name dropper. Starting with the name J-e-s-u-s. Just like it was in the early Church. People listened to the apostles because they “name dropped”. Their authority was primarily from who they were, not primarily what they said. Paul himself says to follow the “traditions” he has handed down “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Paul is the focus based on his position and his name.

“When all of their [Catholics] rhetorical dust settles to the ground, however, the only true authority left standing is God speaking to His people through His veritable Word.”

When will the “rhetorical dust” settle to the ground for Protestants? After 500 years the rhetoric is more diverse all the time. Would God really speak that kind of confusion to all these people through His word? Better to listen to the men who have the authority handed down from Peter and Paul to interpret the book.

Hagopian also just glosses over apostolic succession, which is historical, and scriptural, and for some people is the main reason for conversion. He also implies that Catholics believe only they have it. Not true. We believe the Eastern Orthodox still have all 7 sacraments, including Holy Orders.

“Falling in love with everything Rome has to offer is ultimately why Neocatholics have found their home in Rome.”

Wrong. Every convert I know has had and does have areas where there was anything but love for “everything Rome has to offer”. Areas where they needed to submit to the wisdom of the Church over their own desires. I find myself in that position frequently. By far the main reason for conversion I have personally encountered, and Hagopian barely touches on, is authority, not "falling in love" primarily. Right or wrong, most converts feel there was just no objective authority in Protestantism, and that it could not claim to be the true Church which Christ left on this earth. That is a big reason! Telling converts how all the other protestant sects are wrong (Hagopian does this near the end) is just more of the same. Even if his arguments are convincing, what authority does he have to interpret scripture and demand others listen to him? Has the apostolic authority landed on his shoulders? Puh-leeese.
Another thing here. What the hell is wrong with falling in love? Shouldnt Hagopian ask why people aren't busting down the doors of his "frozen chosen" Reformed church because they have just "fallen in love" with everything Reformed? I have a lot of reasons for being married to my wife. Lots of great reasons. But a kind of visceral, emotional love better be on my list of reasons for loving her. I converted to Reformed in '01, and Catholic in '10 so I think I can speak to this. I "loved" Reformed theology because I believed it to be the most biblical, the closest to the truth, but I didn't fall in love with it. Once I realized she was who she said  she was, I fell in love with the Catholic Church because she is my mother.

Overall, Hagopian does a weak job in his paper. As a convert myself, read many inaccuracies and falsely attributed motives in his arguments. Many of his examples are obviously not the only reason someone converts (more liturgical worship, beauty, or weekly Eucharist for instance), yet he often ends his critique with the following sentence:

“But [he names some minor issues] do not prove that Catholicism is true. Nor do they prove that Protestantism is false.”

Almost all converts have a couple dozen reasons for converting, and not all of them have the same priority. Sometimes 2 dozen little reasons add up to a very convincing reason for conversion also. That is very reasonable. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I for one find the size and scope of the Catholic Church to be a very important proof in favor of Catholicism. It alone is not proof of course, but it is significant to me, and was on my list of "circumstantial" evidences in favor of conversion.
Hagopian treats each reason as if it were stand alone, and often even misunderstands the reasons, thus presenting a straw man. For instance, having the mass be the same everywhere in the world is not just nice because one knows what to expect in the way Mc Donald’s is nice because the “Big Macs will always taste the same!” as Hagopian says. It is *nice* because it is the ancient liturgy of the Church! The mass is what was handed down from the apostles! That is the main reason a convert wants the Catholic Liturgy, with matters of convenience or stained glass in second (but still significant) place! Hagopian chooses to gloss over what are probably the primary reasons though, and talks about Big Macs.

“Perhaps after travelling part of the way down the yellow brick road of Neocatholic rhetoric, we are now in a better position to "give an answer" -- in an introductory way, to be sure -- to those who are considering making their home in Rome and even to those who are already there.”

My criticisms of Protestantism are still hanging out there unanswered. So big F Fail on your part buddy. Giving just any "answer" is not enough. And if that is your goal, you will fail. What we converts want is for you to give us the truth, and give it wherever it takes you. It seems more often however, that people just want to give an "answer" even if it makes no sense.

“After all, even Dorothy, with the blink of an eye, realized that her adventure in the land of Oz was only a dream.”

If I wake up and realize Catholicism is a dream, I am abandoning the Christian faith entirely because to me it would be shown to be a complete joke. There is either ONE Church who has Christ’s authority and demands submission, or the whole thing is a big joke. What is implied here also is that Catholicism is too good to be true, like the Wizard of Oz. But this is Christ's Church! Doesn't that seem just like Him to do something so extreme? It is not obvious enough that people don't still think it is fake, but if you give it a chance, and look at its history fairly, it will surprise you as a 2000 year old miracle of beauty holiness and truth.

Does the Bible say the Church rejected St. Paul and immediately apostatized?

In the context of the Catholic claim to succession, Kendra cites verses in scripture showing people “rejecting the truth within the church since before the church even began.”


My response which I will defend here is twofold:


One, that these verses do not show that the Church was “plunged into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years”.

And two, these verses do not show the Catholic conception of apostolic succession to be false.

The verses are from this article:
www.bereanbiblesociety.org/ohair/HTML/BEREANFEBRUARY1936/notes.html
Here is the pertinent paragraph:

“Nevertheless, the devil also seems to have scored a great victory in that he instigated a deadly hatred, against the human teller of this secret. It is very important to see that from the time he told this mystery, Paul was forsaken by many of his old friends. Study carefully Philippians 2:20 and 21; Colossians 4:11; II Timothy 1:15; II Timothy 4:10; II Timothy 4:17; Ephesians 6:19 and 20. The great apostasy which plunged the Church in the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry. At least eighty per cent of the confusion and delusion of our troubled days is also directly attributable to the same cause.”

First, I will admit that these verses showing very early apostasy are *consistent* with there being “The great apostasy which plunged the Church in[to] the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.”

But they do not prove any such thing happened, and they are also consistent with a quite opposite situation with a faithful remnant of a Church under severe persecution (what I would say), which is what we find in the scripture (St. John) and in the late 1st and early 2nd century with men like Pope St. Clement (90’s) and St. Ignatius (107). These men also speak extensively about unity and apostasy. Clement does so to the SAME Corinthian church Paul had written to! That right there shows that the Corinthians had not apostatized even as late as the 90’s. In 107 Ignatius writes to 6 different churches (including Ephesus, where St. John had been) that had not apostatized. And as far as these apostates rejecting Paul in some *specific* way, no, because every single other (I’m pretty sure) New Testament writer besides Paul gives examples of or speaks against apostasy. For instance if we look at 1John, which was probably written in the 90’s, he also talks about apostates and “anti-christs”. 30 years after Paul’s death there are still Christians apostatizing, just like today. Also Paul nowhere implies in these verses the apostasy is universal (could effect the entire Church.)

These verses do not prove a mass apostasy started with Paul any more than the rich young ruler leaving Jesus or many of his disciples who leave Him in John 6 proves that that was the point of a great apostasy, or that the apostles abandoning him on the cross proves it. We all can agree that in the early church before and after Paul there was apostasy. No one denies that, but the entire NT taken as a whole paints a picture of a Church losing apostates yet surviving intact.


Second, these verses do not show the succession (which we clearly see in scripture) to have been broken or to not be in effect in the NT. One of the great things about succession is that it shines light like a laser on apostasy. In fact it is the only way to objectively identify apostasy. When multiple men claim to speak with the authority of God and all use scripture to back their claims, succession can show us who is legit and who is not. The actual scriptural proofs for succession are not the topic here, so I wont side track.

My point is merely to say that these verses are consistent with apostolic succession and in no way disprove it or show it to not be in effect in NT times. Apostolic succession does not imply there will not be apostasy from the Church, in fact it assumes it! It is an objective way of identifying the Church and who seperates from the Church. Those who do not even claim apostolic succession (such as you Pauline Dispensationalists) generally have some other way of determining if they are an apostate. (for your denomination I believe it would be something on the order of "not recieving the free gift of God's grace") But history (even right away in NT history) has shown that abandoning physical apostolic succession and the teaching of the apostles is what makes an apostate. That is why John says “they went out from us”, and why Paul says he hands people over to Satan. There is a positional change, not just merely a change of doctrinal opinion, but a change in *who’s authority* the apostate is under. From the apostles and their successors they leave to go to some other authority.

I will comment briefly on a few of the verses:

Here is a link to Biblegateway with the scriptures all on the same page for reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:20-21;%20%20Colossians%204:11;%20II%20Timothy%201:15;%202%20Tim.%204;%20Ephesians%206:19-20&version=DRA


Phil. 2:20-21: “For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.” Paul is highly recommending Timothy, one of the faithful men whom he has ordained in the line of succession. His point is not to say the whole Church is apostate, but that Bishop Timothy is a diamond in the rough. (Btw, in 2 Tim. 2:2 Paul give the first four generations of apostolic succession.)

Col. 4:11: “and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” He is talking about those “fellow workers” he is working with directly, face to face. He is not implying everyone else is apostate. Side note: Notice he is working for the “Kingdom” program as well, which is the only NT program.

1Tim. 1:15: “You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.” Paul is talking about those who have left him to rot in prison, as the following verses show. He is not saying that every believer in all of Asia (Turkey) has apostatized.

2 Tim. 4:10, 17: (The writer of the article meant 16, not 17 I think) Again Paul is merely talking about those who have abandoned him in prison. As verse 9, and 10-15 put into context. There is no “Great Apostasy” that is “commencing with the rejection of Paul’s message”. Just in chapter 4 alone, Paul mentions 14 people by name that are not apostate, he mentions a whole household, plus 5 cities (including “all the brethren” at Rome, including the future pope Linus who is also mentioned) including Ephesus and Corinth which have non-apostate churches.

Eph. 6:19-20 I am at a loss. I don’t understand how this verse relates even a little bit. Paul asks for prayer that he may boldly preach the gospel. How does that relate? Perhaps it was mis-cited?


I set out to show two points. And I think I have shown here how #1 these verses *do not* prove that “The great apostasy […] plunged the Church into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenc[ing] with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.” And that #2, they do not in any way contradict the clear NT teaching on apostolic succession. Even if half the NT Church apostatized, there still was a sizeable Church that we see (in the NT and early Christian writings) handing down the apostolic faith.

At the very least, someone inclined to use these verses as reason to believe that a “Great Apostasy” began directly after Paul must concede that it is quite reasonable for others to disagree about that particular interpretation even based on scripture alone. (The vast majority of Protestants disagree vigorously with that interpretation) If we include post NT history which shows a continuing faithful church directly seeded by the apostles…

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

...the case becomes even more undeniable.

Harold Camping: Man in the Protestants Mirror

Condescending Old Fart, and Heretic After his failed prediction of the rapture, piece of crap false prophet Harold Camping has the following to say to reporters: (I personally transcribed from video from the AP from May 24) (Bold text indicates emphatic, slow voice with hands gesturing in the air for effect)

“On May 21st 2011 we didn’t feel any difference… we didn’t see any difference in the world, but we know from the bible that God brought judgment day to bear on the whole world… the whole world is under judgment day. And it will continue up until October 21 2011 and at that time the whole world will be destroyed. God had not opened our eyes yet to the fact that May 21 was a spiritual coming, as we had thought it was a physical coming, but He has come, he has come in the sense that He now has the world under judgment… if people want me to apologize I can apologize yes, I did not have all of that worked out as exactly as a should have... or wish I could have had it…uh... that doesn’t bother me at all. I’m not a genius, and I pray all the time for wisdom and when I make an error I admit, I say “yes, I was wrong”… I can’t be responsibility of anybody’s life, I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says. I don’t have spiritual rule over anybody, except my wife.”

OK, so he is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. And is the whole situation deliciously funny? Yes, Hilarious. He is a false prophet and deserves ridicule. But that is not what I want to focus on. I am a very sarcastic person and that is a fault of mine. I eat this kind of thing up because I get to point out someone’s failures which I tell myself I am far from following them into. Of course I have my own problems that I sweep under the rug amongst all my pointing, hooting, and mocking. Mote and beam, you know the drill. So I don’t wish to rub Harold Camping’s nose in his foul hairball he has hacked onto Christianity’s carpet. Anyway, it should be obvious to us all that he is a complete looney. Right? Hmm… But WHY is he a looney? What is at the root? Evangelicals need to ask themselves what is different about Camping’s method of bible interpretation and theirs? I want to argue that no matter which version of sola Scriptura (bible alone) Protestants take, they are solidly in Camping’s “camp” when it comes to method. Coming to a different conclusion does not mean other Protestants are off the hook. You can say all day that you would never predict the rapture day because Jesus says in Matt. 24:36 that we can’t know. And hey YOUR RIGHT! But I want to clue you into the fact that even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Even Hitler loved his dog. Pretending the bible is all as easy as interpreting Matt. 24:36 is just silly and sad. Yet that is exactly what Protestants think about their interpretive abilities. Reformed Christians generally don’t even believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, so they like to think they are really far from the likes of Camping. But strangely, when they describe their method of interpretation, it will match Camping 100% Here is what I mean. Take a look at the quote I transcribed. This is what Camping says:

“I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says.”

This is EXACTLY what any Protestant would say! “BUT,” says Joe Protestant, “Camping is not teaching what the bible really says! He is taking things out of context and making things fit his preconceived view of things! So there!” Of course, I respond Camping would say and believe the same about you! Because the fact remains that he is using the exact same method you are. Cases like his false prophecy are really easy for you to point at and say he got it wrong, but we all know that there is more to bible interpretation than sensational false prophesies. In the everyday world of the average Christian, there are DOZENS of important doctrinal and dogmatic issues that cannot be pointed at with the same confident finger. What about baptism? Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Does it regenerate or just symbolize? Is it for or infants or adults? And this is merely ONE important issue that Protestants disagree among themselves about “what the bible says”. And you all use the same logic as Camping; that you are just going by “what the bible says”. And sadly, from personal experience I believe you. I don’t believe you set out to deceive yourselves or anyone else, you just want the truth, and you believe your interpretation is true. You want to submit to what you see as an authority outside yourself (the bible) but what you end up with is some man’s opinion of what the bible says (maybe yours, maybe someone else’s, maybe right maybe wrong). To the Protestant skeptic, I offer proof of this fact: Heretic Test. To prove to yourself your method of discovering truth from the bible is no different than Harold Camping’s method; ask yourself the question “How would my current situation look different if my interpretation were wrong?” That is to say, assuming your current reading of scripture on (doctrine X) is correct, what would be different in your approach/interpretation in a situation where you fell into error? If there is no difference in what you would say or feel between these two situations, then what makes you so sure you are not in grave error? Remember we are talking about method not result. Again, let’s assume for sake of argument one of the following propositions: A. You have properly interpreted the bible and understand what God is saying in His word about doctrine X. B. You have completely misinterpreted the bible and have an incorrect interpretation of doctrine X. Now let’s ask our question. If your current situation is A, what would be different about how you would describe your situation from within situation B? What would you say differently? If you believe you are in situation A at this moment (pick a doctrine), what would you say right now about your own situation that Harold Camping would not say about his situation? (queue Jeopardy music...) Answer? The fact is you would say nothing substantially different from him. You would say you have taken the bible at it’s word, that you have studied hard and asked the Spirit for help, that you had prayed for wisdom, and had gleaned the truth from the bible. In short, you would say you are following the bible. Harold Camping would say the exact same as you. So I ask you, how are you any different from him in this respect? If you can’t point to a difference, then there is none my friend! Tu quoque? As a Catholic, I do not fall into this trap with you. When I look at situation A above, I am using the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church as a guide. So when I ask the question “what would be different?” my answer is that my doctrine would have to change from that of the Magisterium. For instance, a Catholic CANNOT hold to premillenialism and the usual “rapture” theology it entails. That is specifically forbiden for Catholics to hold that view. So if I were to start believing that tomorrow, I would immediately find a big change in my method. I will find that I no longer am in agreement with the Church on this matter and have either ignored or disobeyed the Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium of the Church. Bishops of the world gathered at the Second Vatican council. I can then either return to orthodox belief or remain in my heresy, but either way, there is quite a difference in my situation, and I (unlike you) can describe it to you in detail. The Protestant (you) has no such difference. Each doctrinal position he takes will be for the same reasons as the gravest heretic, and both roads are paved with the best of motives and most inocent intentions. The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic saying he believes the bible, the protestant believes the same, and would say the same. The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic claiming the bible as his highest authority (and truly believing so) and the Protestant would say THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT HIS OWN SITUATION. If you behave like a heretic, talk like one, and can’t tell the difference between yourself and a heretic… then you are a heretic! So Protestants, I suggest you not be so quick to laugh at Harold Camping. You are standing shoulder to shoulder with him under the banner of sola Scriptura, using the EXACT same arguments he does and saying the EXACT same things about scripture he does, so the conclusion is inevitable: you are objectively a heretic just like he is. You fool! Cower in shame before the bishops of the Church Christ founded and repent of your arrogation of authority. There is ONE faith, and ONE, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Crawl back to Christ on your hands and knees and beg his priests for absolution for your schism. Kyrie Eleison!